Ms. Schnell, divorced and middle-aged, lives in an old two-flat Victorian house in Hartford, Wis., which is near Milwaukee.

A few years ago, she tried to rent the second apartment to someone who could do handyman work in exchange for a break on the rent. So she put an ad in a newspaper. The ad stated: ''Apartment for rent, 1 bedroom, electric included, mature Christian handyman.''

There was no response, so she placed another ad that stated: ''For rent. 1-bedroom upper flat. Appliances and electric paid. Looking for mature handyman or couple.''

Boy, oh boy, was she in trouble.

Why, you ask?

Obviously, you are not sensitive, politically correct and hip about how we must regard our fellow man, woman or whatsis. There was the word handyMAN. That is sex discrimination, because she was rejecting handyFEMALES. Or even females who might not be handy. And she engaged in religious discrimination because she said, ''mature Christian handyman.''

In Milwaukee, there is something called the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. Its do-gooders snoop the classifieds, looking for ads that discriminate. And when they spotted Ms. Schnell's ads, they pounced. They called Ms. Schnell and explained her misdeeds.

She was flabbergasted. A deeply religious person, she said that the ads simply meant that she wanted a geezer with decent values who was quiet, stable and handy with tools. She would have accepted any religion.

So the do-gooders offered her a deal. They would drop the charge of violating the state's fair-housing law if she would pay $500 for their lawyer's fee and $50 for their efforts.

As they said, she didn't have to use the word ''Christian.'' She could have said that she wanted someone with ''traditional family values.''

Which is kind of stupid, if you think about it. She might then have been discriminating against gays or couples who don't believe in marriage or a married couple who believe in swapping-sex parties.

So she refused to fork over $500 for their lawyer and $50 for their petty-cash fund.

Instead, there was a hearing by a state agency, and the bureaucrats said that she lost.

Which made her even more indignant.

So she told her lawyer to appeal the ruling. It went to a higher court, which declared that she should have her day in court and that a trial should be held.

So before a jury trial was held, the do-gooders offered her another deal. They would settle for a mere token payment of $50. Ah, but that would have meant that they won and she lost, and she could be asked to pay their lawyers' fees, which would add up to thousands of dollars.

She told them to forget it.

So they offered her another deal. They would drop the case if she would take sensitivity training and agree to a confidentiality agreement. In other words, they didn't want her or her lawyer to talk about the case.

She told them what they could do with that deal, too.

So they caved in. Rather than take a chance on losing the trial, they said they wanted the case dismissed completely.

To their surprise, Ms. Schnell tried to reject that, too.

As her lawyer explained: ''She didn't want it dismissed. After what she's been through, she wanted her day in court. She wanted a trial so she could prove that she is not the kind of person who would discriminate. She hasn't rented for three years for fear that she'd be sued again. So she's lost the income from that. She works part time as a florist to scrape by and to help her elderly, sick mother. She's angry and feels that the Fair Housing Council was unfair and heavy-handed. And that they aren't interested in whether a person is innocent, but just in pushing their agenda.

''The council didn't want to go to trial, because the jury would hear her intent and the way she meant it. She was looking for someone of good values. The definition of Christian in the dictionary also says it is someone of good values. She meant it like that. She didn't want a criminal or a party person. She wanted a reliable, law-abiding citizen. But she didn't phrase it in a way to avoid discrimination charges.''

But the judge said the council could get the case dismissed without a trial.

And that made Ms. Schnell the ''prevailing party.'' In other words, she won.

Is that the end of it? Maybe not.

Now, she's thinking of another appeal that would require a jury trial.

''She believes someone has to stop the spread of this kind of thing,'' her lawyer said. ''If people don't stand up for the truth, then organizations will continue to do this to innocent citizens.''

And she still could use a handyman. Oops, that should be a handyperson. Or maybe a handycreature.